Does the Manosphere Morally Corrupt Men?

For several years now, the website I read more than any other has been Chateau Heartiste, formerly known as Chateau Roissy. I also read Roosh V. from time to time. Both men are highly intelligent, and Heartiste is also a brilliant stylist, with a wicked sense of humor.

But, for all the pleasure and knowledge I have derived from these and other manosphere writers, I am increasingly drawn to the view that the net result of the manosphere is to morally corrupt men.

Paradoxical though it may seem, I also think the manosphere is actually a mechanism by which women morally corrupt men. The manosphere is touted as a way for men to emancipate themselves from the tyranny of feminism, but in reality it functions as a subtle instrument of female domination.

No normal, healthy man would want his daughter or sister to be emotionally manipulated and sexually exploited by a man who is narcissistic, sociopathic, and Machiavellian — or just a garden variety jerk.

However, the manosphere informs us that science, history, and copious anecdotal testimony show that when women are allowed complete choice in the sexual realm — particularly if they can have sex without the threat of pregnancy — they do not simply gravitate toward biologically and mentally healthy men with “Alpha” traits but also to a whole range of “false positives,” ranging from emotionally aloof and unavailable men to jerks and cads to men with severe “dark triad” personality disorders: narcissism, sociopathy, and Machiavellianism.

A healthy, well-ordered society punishes jerks and cads. Ideally, it should simply weed out people with severe personality disorders by preventing them from reproducing. Thus, emancipated female sexual choice morally and psychologically corrupts men. Not because sex is evil or “sinful,” but because emancipated women reward anti-social behaviors and pathological personality traits with sex. Furthermore, emancipated female sexual choice harms the women who fall victim to jerks and sociopaths. Finally, since a great deal of personality is genetically determined and thus heritable, emancipated female sexuality is dysgenic, because it helps perpetuate jerk genes.

To correct these problems, we need to roll back sexual liberation by reestablishing social shaming for female promiscuity and, most importantly, involving the family — particularly fathers and brothers — in the process by which women choose suitors and husbands. Involving the family in her deliberations can expand a woman’s awareness and sharpen her judgments by bringing other perspectives into play. Men, furthermore, are better than women at discerning good men from evil ones, and, as I said above, no decent man wants his sister or daughter to be exploited and victimized by bad men. (For all the same reasons, mothers and sisters should involve themselves in the process of selecting suitors and mates for the young men in their families.)

Now, I suspect that manosphere gurus like Heartiste and Roosh are actually with me so far, even agreeing basically with my conservative political agenda.

So why do I think that the manosphere works as a tool by which feral feminine desire corrupts men? Because the manosphere simply takes emancipated female sexuality as a given. Then it teaches young men to adopt the behaviors and mimic the traits that appeal to such women. Young men not only learn about healthy masculine traits but also admiringly analyze “jerkboy” game and “dark triad” cads.

For me, the alarm bell sounded when two young Heartiste readers whom I respect and admire independently offered the same argument: to wit, that I was wrong about a third individual, because he is not Machiavellian, just narcissistic and lacking in empathy. This analysis, mind you, was offered as a defense rather than as an indictment of an infamy to be crushed.

In sum, my concern is that the manosphere teaches young men to emulate anti-social and pathological traits. Women then reinforce these traits with one of the most powerful inducements of all: sex. And, over time, otherwise good men become the kind of men they would never allow around their own sisters and daughters. This is moral corruption. Namely, moral corruption by teaching men to conform to emancipated female desire rather than to correct it.

The manosphere provides the New Right with all the theoretical premises necessary for a patriarchal sexual counter-revolution that reinstitutes traditional and — it turns out — biologically sound norms and institutions to govern sexuality, thereby promoting the individual happiness of men and women and the common good of society and the race in general.

But in practical terms, the manosphere does not promote such a restoration, but instead urges an ethic of “riding the tiger” (or perhaps the cougar), i.e., to personally wallow in — and thus to amplify and advance — the decadence that we are supposed to combat.

86 Comments

If it were true that all women were attracted to narcissistic psychopaths, then the manospherians would be awash in women. The fact that 100% of them are either permanent rejects, or in highly dysfunctional relationships with women who are on the verge of escape, proves that women, overall, have healthy instincts about men.

The only women who are attracted to narcissistic psychopaths are those who are personality disordered themselves. It should not therefore be a surprise that any “knowledge” of women that the manospherian types possess comes from interacting with women who are as damaged as they are.

A good rule of rational thinking is to not take the opinions of personality disordered individuals (i.e., narcissistic psychopaths of the manosphere) as any sort of reliable reflection of shared reality. If a red piller / manospherian tells you that something is true, you can be nearly 100% certain he is offering his projection which most likely has very little to do with reality as we know it.

Don’t sound like you are sitting in a lonely castle or bunker and moralizing.
Don’t sound like a white knight formulating something akin to “if I am not getting any than nobody will” because your tone sort of has that inclination. Just a shallow observation perhaps.

Don’t just see the total political plane. Look at trying to form practical advice in the very present we are living, otherwise it sounds like revolutionary fantasies.
We all envision a future for our own. We just can’t always, in the present, be the kind of people that future will require because this present world requires something else. It is a matter of having a surface and an inner compass, and being able to have a mental distance in between. One moral in the face of this society and the enemy, another one in th face of our kin and our community. Call it jewish or whatever, it is still the successful ethic, the ethnic ethic must be ethnocentric and even centered on ideological allies only.

If we don’t survive this current age because your advice about being a good boy alway is potentially heeded by alot of people, it will potentially result in less mating by intelligent white males, then this future you envision will not happen simply because those males will have been bred out of existence.
All on the mere philosophical premise that we must retain a moral high ground at all times and at all costs. Revolutions and basic survival just don’t work that way, sorry.

Don’t be quick to judge cold men as dysgenic.
Analyze the trend correctly.
Civilization is heading for barbarism.
Now, what kind of people survives barbarism?
Cold males.

I am sorry but your views expressed in this article are sort of puritanical.

“And, over time, otherwise good men become the kind of men they would never allow around their own sisters and daughters.”

This is just assumption on your part.

Also, I’d rather see a really good person emulate a bad person in order to spread his genes than a truly evil person spreading his genes instead.
They are both tricking women, but one has a better heart than the other in the end, so would produce a morally healthier offspring, does that count for nothing?
Would you rather see the really good person suffer loneliness and get bred out of existence because he can’t cope with modern society and feels he must not adapt even superficially in manners and behavior?
How are you helping the white race this way?

Yes women are the way they are.
But what you say about the ‘how’ is actually saying it is inherent in women, and that we are only seeing it because they now have full rights. You are saying it was latent all along and only showing now when they are not under the rule of men?

Well see it this way.
If you want to correct female thinking in this aspect, then you really should let these cold men you despise, have and rule families.
If they care enough for their female members they will be really careful about who their daughters date and not.
Because, who will know a bad man better than such fathers do if they are themselves either bad men or good men that have properly studied and emulated the behavior of bad men?
They will be the perfect candidates to correct female thinking if you think about it.

You can never correct any problem unless you first properly understand it both theoretically and practically. Understanding it practically is what leads to the solution.

Will beta white knights correct female thinking?
No, beta white knights don’t even know the first thing about women, let alone how to actually rein them in and correct their thinking.

Stop fabulating about “when we finally rule society we will come to terms with all of this”.
We will never rule society if we don’t first come up with some concrete tips and solutions to issues that people can practice in their daily life.
Taking control of a nation is the last step as you know, properly understanding metapolitics, I mean you wrote THE Manual on it.
First comes: The Family Unit.

Even if the manosphere and PUAs are vile and crude, they are promulgating things that actually has a genetical effect on the white race, good or bad. Because people get laid from it, so children must be born from it.

Now, between intellectual characters such as yourselves and the single-minded “dark triad”, PUAs and cold men in general, I can see there is a huge void that needs filling. Because neither is fully satisfying on the issue.

In summary:
The solution is in action.
The action might not seem moral in itself, but it all really hinges on the end.
In reverse, if you have very noble ends but you think that such noble ends must be met by equally noble means, it just means you will lose.
So it was in the art of war when the machine guns, submarines and aeoroplanes were introduced, the noble knights simply got mowed down.
So it is in this regard, the noble hearted but sissy men will get eradicated by not getting laid.

Here is the trick and the mystery:
You can have a noble heart and still adapt your methods to what works.
In some cases it might be seen as a sort of self-delusion (think about jews and communists e.g.) but the fact is that it works in the end, because revolution and thus power comes by such means.

Maybe it is a sort of doublethink, who cares?
Stick with what works and what makes the white race survive.

The survival of our race is everything.
All intellectual pursuits in this regard are in reality just rationalization for action.
Never let intellectual, philosophical, ethical or theological pursits push aside the issue at hand: Saving our race from extinction.

The heart may want what the heart wants, but if what it wants does not in fact exist (a contention supported by the priesthood in white coats), then the heart will just have to deal with it. The desire of the loins is fixated on a less-disputed object, but one that can be easily substituted or sublimated.

I’m curious, then, as to why anyone who accepts a materialism, and/or biological determinism, cares enough to invest time, money, and energy in playing “the game.” More broadly, why do nihilists strive for anything whatsoever?

I am laughing out loud right now. I love that the first comment was some shamefully idiotic “I’ll be poolside.” Its so obvious how bad the problem is.

This article drove home an excellent point that needs to be made more. This will upset many smug personalities in the manosphere, which is good. I have long argued that “Red Pill” practices are actually a kind of male-feminism. I’d argue the same about MRAs. Patriarchy is the only path.

My friend in France complains he loses his daughters because the Judge have found out he has no job contract, he works freelance in IT. Their mother have been hospitalized for years and she might remain so. I have never ever seen or heard gypsies been treated this way. France; the home of Liberte, egalite and fraternite.

Don’t you think there are some hundred percents of “liberalism” which can be removed from our society?
Isn’t the gender equalization just a subproject of the general egalitarian culture?

Instead of focus on restrictions and regressive measures, i would like to follow the flow : )

Giving females full sexual freedom.
This means they must take responsibility for their own sexual actions.
If they get pregnant out of wedlock or any other similar contract, she can have all the children she wants, he has no right to claim abortion as it is her body. But if the man doesn’t want to support it, he shall not have to, saying so before the option of abortion runs out.
If she have sex out of marriage or other engagement, she should by legal definition having just fun. He too.
But it isn’t so, the practical responsibility is his, and this is the point where state sponsored matriarchy overrules gender equality. She gets the right to choose who shall be born to our nanny state. She overrules male sexuality. This is no form for equality, but matriarchy.
With the need of Mans consent for obtaining his further care, balance is restored. If many people think more about this point, more arguments will appear.
I would like having children to be the responsibility, pleasure and work of both. In a society taking up this rule, its children would know for sure if they were wanted by both. Todays society accepts female egoism as ruler. This shows up to be one serious evolutionary disadvantage, research fatherless statistics.

Also attack female profiting from divorce.

And don’t accept a wife that is smarter. If you can’t tell her what is right, she will disrespect you and start abusing you – and You will be a stupid man with a troll for wife, the unhappy couple. Don’t listen to intellectual females complaining about how scared males are for her intellectual sides, just walk. They don’t even understand themselves. Find someone who wants you to feel precious. The beginning of sex is in the gym.

The references to evolutionary psychology used in defense of that Alpha/Beta distinction in the comments section are misguided.

I am no expert, but from what I’ve read of evolutionary psychology, the “progress” of human macro-evolution is more or less that we evolved to be moral animals; that is, we became able to be aware of unconscious forces and thus to slowly learned how to master them.

At the core level, I thought that is why I have become part of this movement; to seed a future that re-establishes real moral communities as opposed to the engineered, decadent and dissolute globalist communities preferred by the present masters.

This idea of simple expurgation and annihilation of others is not only unjust, but immoral and tyrannical. And it is not how evolution works.

I’ve learned a lot from ROK and CH, but there are definite pitfalls to the manosphere.

For a start, while understanding game concepts (specifically power dynamics) can benefit any man in any relationship, following the game philosophy to its end results in a man sacrificing his authentic self to become the type of clown preferred by the female id. Take a look at Mystery to see what I mean.

You can’t on the one hand regularly point on the complete irrationality, and ultimately stupidity, of the hamster and then model your self on what this stupid, irrational hamster has concocted in its nest of privilege. The result is quite literally a dopamine addicted clown of zero value to anyone at all.

The other concept that the manosphere introduces that isn’t particularly helpful is the alpha/beta distinction. Gamma is much more helpful.

The belief is you can mold yourself into an alpha. That’s simply not true. Genuine alphas, who will be instantly recognized as such by the majority of women, are extremely rare. For the rest you have betas, and their degree of ‘alphaness’ is just relative to the beta-tude of the guys around them. They’ll never be the real deal, no matter how much game they practise, and they WILL be exposed in long term relationships. Women are experts at sniffing this stuff out.

Finally, it’s likely that many of these game-styled alphas are completely ignorant of the fact that their success at game is probably to some degree actually determined by the sluttiness of the women they end up screwing. Most likely women who require very little game at all to drop their panties.

Just as the sluts are screwing a relatively small proportion of the male population, men are screwing a small population of the same sluts. I’ve been there, I’ve done that, and it’s not a major achievement. Real sluts will even approach you rather than vise versa.

Great article. I believe Manosphere operators are simply responding to the racial heat. Manosphere is becoming more overtly racial. And the more successful writers are being forced to pick sides. Heartiste has made outright overtures to the meme seeders from our Pro White camp (with both tweets and supporting post on his blog). Roosh decided to court the anti-White SJW set and quickly got his head blown off.

Interesting and one to watch. I would guess as things become more and more racial. Certain elements of Manosphere may clean up their acts and heed some of your advice. And I would bet other elements become more and more degenerate.

Roosh_V Mod Daniel Holland • 6 days ago
“By employing this double standard you are aiding and abetting the continued dissolution of white societies and culture. ”

I’m not white. Why should I care about the future of white societies enough to actively white knight for them?
4 • Reply•Share ›
–
Avatar
BernieGoetzFan Roosh_V • 6 days ago
1. You seem to prefer white societies and white women.
2. You and your children (should you have any) will certainly be seen as white by blacks and other groups.
3 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Roosh_V Mod BernieGoetzFan • 6 days ago
My children will never be seen as white by whites. Assuming I reproduce in Europe, I would naturally support a culture that has a degree of openness to outgroups.

Roosh’s “liking” of white women is limited to exploiting them sexually; other than that his preference is for a future where they will cease to exist. If that’s not a corrupting influence, what would be?

Our sexual desires are ruled by evolution, and evolution is a ruthless master. Girls therefore cannot help but being turned on by “alpha males”. Civilization, especially the raising of children in a stable marriage however, demands that we canalize our desires. Men can help women in this process by developing traits that emulate those of the “alpha male”. These traits will still stimulate the female sexual response, so as avoid sexual misery in our women.

One of the main traits of the alpha man is his brutality, his willingness to use violence. And it is exactly this trait that is often lacking in middle class white men. The high incidence of white women chosing black men may very well have to do with blacks’ greater aggressiveness.

Gregory Hood writes in his article “The Monster we need”: “Indeed, the middle class and the working class in this country can largely be separated not on the basis of wealth, but on their openness to the use of physical force. If you’re at a party where a thrown punch will lead to police, arrests, and lawsuits, congratulations – you’re middle class, even if you’re carrying $80,000 in student loan debt.”

Maybe we can define the negative character traits mentioned by Greg Johnson as dishonest violence: scheming, manipulating etc. An honest man, who still wants to emulate the characteristics of the alpha man, might however learn to overcome his middle class house training and display “honest violence”: fist fights, boxing, hunting etc. Tyler Durden may have some valuable advice on this…

Great article Greg. I couldn’t agree more, and this is something I’ve been thinking about for a while.

The manosphere is superficially interesting, and does cover some of the problems we have with modernity. However, the fact that it gets things half right makes it even more dangerous than more obvious enemies.

The only solution is the re-establishment of some kind of patriarchy, and there’s a reason you won’t see this supported by the manosphere. The reason is because it offers a solution, whereas the manosphere prefers to wallow in the problem, The manosphere is so toxic and unworkable that I’m inclined to believe it to be intentionally subversive. What could be more elite-friendly than a bunch of emasculated men who have given up on EVERY male imperative EXCEPT promiscuous sex. The last time I checked, the push for promiscuous sex is now almost 50 years old. There’s nothing new or revolutionary about it, and there’s certainly nothing new or revolutionary about giving up (MGTOW).

The men’s movement… you know the one that wants to change actual laws, and make a difference in the actual lives of real men. What happened to that? Well, I’m sure these social rejects who organized the “manosphere” have done their job by undermining any productive resistance, and that includes the real men’s movement.

Most women I know are more stable, more stoic, more disciplined, less melodramatic, less whiny, less needy, less narcissistic than the “Alphas” of the spamoshphere. Strangely enough, these “Alphas” seem to exhibit most of the negative traits that they attribute to women. Let’s get back to the real world and concentrate on building organic communities.

K9 said, “Let’s not talk about “healthy partnerships” when every law and court is stacked against the male and the tax on his labour is funding this whole charade.”

So, we should ignore discussion of any solutions to these problems brought upon our people by an outside invasive species in favor of what? Feeling blue about the inequities of the legal system against Whites? I find this sort of mindset incredibly short-sighted. We need to come together to fix these problems in our societies and in our personal lives so our people can continue. We know there are very real problems in the world, but adults come together to fix them. If we do not, we can guarantee that taxes and family law will have no relevance to our no-longer-existing people.

PQ said, “Mr. Johnson is dead-on, as usual. The re-domestication of the savage and vicious woman should be an urgent priority, as well as the re-masculation of males when we establish our own homeland.”

I believe your point as to the potential pitfalls of the manosphere is fully realized in this little gem, Greg. I could see an angry twelve-year-old boy extolling this kind of vitriol against women, but from an adult male in a pro-White community? We are fighting for the future of our people, or, rather, a future for our people. We’ve got a lot at stake here. If we can’t align with each other, as adults fighting for our existence, we won’t exist. We all need to grow up, and maybe that’s my biggest issue with the manospere and, certainly feminism, is the perpetuating of the eternal adolescent.

“So, we should ignore discussion of any solutions to these problems brought upon our people by an outside invasive species in favor of what?”

I didn’t read any solutions because truth is, you wouldn’t like them and I don’t blame you. What exactly is “coming together” supposed to mean?

My guess, is as usual, you expect beta-males to go out and sacrifice their lives (like WW1/2) to cleanse the land of non-whites while everyone else has a party afterwards. Yes, doing it for “our people” sounds real nice… but it isn’t working is it? Not in this age of cynicism and materialism. It’s a damn shame but there’s no way around it.

“My guess, is as usual, you expect beta-males to go out and sacrifice their lives (like WW1/2) to cleanse the land of non-whites while everyone else has a party afterwards. Yes, doing it for “our people” sounds real nice… but it isn’t working is it?”

Your guess is incorrect. I don’t expect men to fight our enemy on their own. We have, men and women, both, been grievously injured by a foreign menace. The enemy has worked very hard to take what is good and natural in Europeans and twist it into something foul and degenerate, so they feel more at home. Unfortunately, a good many of our people have internalized this foulness and continue to battle against their own people.

What I hope for my people is that we realize we have been enslaved and indoctrinated by a putrid invasive force and that we actively reject the indoctrination by standing by each other for the interest of all White people and fighting against everything which is detrimental to our interests.

Having loving partnerships with husbands and wives (and children) is in the interest of our people. Not buying into the “who’s the bigger Victim(tm)” game is also in our best interest. Let’s leave kvetching and whining to the 2%. We are not a victim race. Let’s take care of our own people and fight for our own interest and that means coming together and having each other’s backs again. Easy, no. Necessary? Absolutely.

Removing the “threat of pregnancy” does not liberate women, it simply denatures them. Disengaging sex from its reproductive moorings denatures women, trivializes sex, and retards the development of masculine traits necessary for the male role of husband and father.

A good example of the retardation of masculinity comes from feminists bullying men into playing the role of midwives at the birth of their children. Since the dawn of time, birth attendants have always been women, in every corner of the world, except possibly for emergency situations. The development of official, enforced technological medicine in the western world has also contributed to the belief that a man should be delivering babies.

There’ll never be any opportunity for continuing high-test attraction between married people if the man is there helping to get the baby out or even just watching in the case of hospital birth. It is a messy situation and can ruin the mystery between the sexes. Some things need to be hidden from the spouse. There is too much openness and familiarity (of the wrong kinds) nowadays.

Having the father present at the birth of his child was one of the early and easy concessions made by the medical profession when women began to question medicalized childbirth – anesthesia, induced labor, surgical equipment and interventions, feeding newborns “formula”, and circumcision. In other words, it was an attempt by some few women to return to a natural way of giving birth, but lacking the supporting structure of midwifery. The presence of the father was not well-thought out, not examined with reference to our cultural history and very likely – misguided.It isn’t easy to reconstruct what has been so methodically deconstructed but if we are to regain our racial vitality we must go back to the biological drawing board.The picture was taken of when I was about three.

“Having the father present at the birth of his child… was an attempt by some few women to return to a natural way of giving birth, but lacking the supporting structure of midwifery. The presence of the father was not well-thought out, not examined with reference to our cultural history and very likely – misguided.

I did this, four times, and I agree with you. That is, I saw the thing. I don’t think it was a good thing. I valued seeing each of my children quite immediately upon their first entrance into the world. (She didn’t see them with the clarity that I did.) But it sort of messed up my head with regard to my wife, physically. It took away some of the magic relative to her body. I also regretted what the sex act put her through. It is brutal.

I am an astrologer. Here is a sort of esoteric observation that ties to your comment:

Remember that old tradition of giving flowers and sweets and cigars to a father while his wife is having a baby? I learned there is cosmic significance in this. If a father is experiencing gore, or the stress of doctors and nurses and a hospital, he is having a bad astrological transit. Perhaps Mars-square-his moon. That’s just the truth. That means the child will also have that position in his/her natal chart, a bad position, relative to the father.

Whenever a father is getting sweets and flowers handed to him, he is having a good transit, such as Venus-sextile-Sun etc. That means that that child will have that nice planet, in the natal chart, relative to the father. (Her Venus in sextile to his Sun — for life.) Good things happening to dad when a child is being born? Then good things will exist between that child and him — lifelong.

There was a wisdom, one that came from observation, in the cigars/candy tradition. The people were trying to “make that” be the case. The being-in-delivery-room idea completely turns that on it’s head. All of my children carry a natal Mars that is in bad aspect to my personal planets. And indeed, I was experiencing a stressful thing the moment they were born.

One more thought related to this, I think that warriorship of women takes place in childbirth. Whatever men go through in wars and fighting, the woman goes through in childbirth. And that’s her proper warriorship, where she elementally excels. Not getting shot up in Iraq or killing people coldly or getting raped in the Army.

Interesting comments, Julian. Though I don’t understand astrology all that well, wouldn’t the father experiencing the gore of birth-watching or -assisting be the result of a bad transit, rather than the cause, as you say? Maybe I’m misunderstanding cause & effect, so I ask your indulgence in advance.

Now, about those cigars and flowers and candies that you say were traditionally given to men. Well, I don’t know for certain, of course, but I am late middle aged and old enough to remember that it was the new father who gave out cigars and candies to his friends and associates, not the other way around. I’d like to see what anyone here has to say on this topic.

Yes, indeed – having a baby is women’s rite of passage, we don’t need to go to war and kill people. At least women still have that nowadays (so long as they really labor and push and do it normally, not C-section); men have to invent their own rites of passage in the absence of that old practice now. I read a book on this titled The Men From the Boys – Rites of Passage in Male America.

There is certainly a strong element of “I’ll prosper among the ruins” in the gaming community, and I’ve never particularly liked that aspect of it. Roissy, however, stands apart from the crowd in a number of respects. His blog is clearly not limited to gaming bar whores, but rather encompasses a broader and far more developed worldview. Combine this with his writing, which is first rate, and he qualifies as a rare talent.

Our enemies seek to suppress reality in all manner of ways, so any movement that promotes a suppressed truth has at least some value. Recognizing system lies in one area tends to make a man more receptive to the notion of questioning other parts of the politically correct narrative.

I recall a commenter at Roissy’s site replying to an anti-white: “So, we’ve been lied to all of our lives about pretty much everything, but you expect us to believe the liars about race?” (not an exact quote, but close)

As the culture continues to decline, relationships between men and women will decline with it. Substantive relationships require a lot of work. Commitment, trust, sacrifice, being considerate – the very qualities that are vanishing all around us. The modern anti-white system is eating itself, and it turns out that the first things on its plate are those which make real connection between two people possible, or even desirable. This has happened so rapidly that it’s no longer “alienation, here we come” but rather “alienation, here we are.”

Distrust will only spread and deepen – until we win, that is. Even if many in the gaming community counsel hanging out at poolside, the fact remains that the lion’s share of revolutionaries are young men with little to lose. Men without real status, connection, or a sense of meaning and purpose. Our present society is creating such men by the metric ton. The manosphere is therefore both a product of as well as a facilitator of decline, but also perhaps a facilitator of renewal.

In the long run, the red pill is about far more than just scoring with women. I suspect this is true even if many/most of the main figures involved don’t intend it as such. The process of destruction and renewal has to play itself out.

Nobody is saying that it will be pretty to watch, as destruction can be quite the downer. The sooner we win, the sooner we can get to the good part – renewal.

If you want “freedom” from women, recognize their “control” comes from your sex drive. Control your sex drive, tell the Kali Yuga to shove off. Easier said than done, but recognize that you always have the option to live in the woods, and everything in between. Take a step in the right direction, study the sources of will power and motivation. Women respect a man who has self control and self mastery, so when you stop chasing “game” you will paradoxically become better at it. But even that makes more sense than the Manosphere teaching men that “freedom from feminism means restructuring one’s life around attracting women.” Tradition stands against feminism and the Manosphere. Let’s put the spirit before the flesh.

Yes, I think you are right here. All this “game” stuff just puts women in the driver’s seat. Women are not that stupid. Pretending to be is just part of the – game. This whole debate is amazing to watch unfold.

The Red Pill philosophy is out to teaches potential Alpha’s to be true Alpha’s, just because they still have a few things to work out doesn’t mean they’re in the wrong all together.

Slut shaming is the prerogative of the beta-male, sluts create Alpha males, porn creates Alpha males, and in a world that hasn’t seen a true Alpha male patriarch in over 6000 years it’s understandable that a lot of women fall for false positives.

Confirmation Bias is very powerful thing, it’s causes tunnel vision to focus only on the signs that speak in favor of their hopes that man X is an Alpha male, and ignore the red flags and signs that man X isn’t, particularly hip hop culture etc are to blame for this, You cannot expect for 6000+ years of reeducation of females, and artificial socially engineered reformation of female nature NOT to have left a scar on the mentality of females, this is not a reason to go back to the way things were, since that lead to the way things are now, and reverting back to sexual suppression of women will inevitably lead back to the current state of affairs.

Marriage is a beta-male way of forcing women to do the opposite of what they’re meant to do. As you say yourself to eradicate the undesirable ones through denial of reproduction.

The part where you’re wrong is where you think that cuddly not-able to be aggressive men are ought to reproduce, i’m telling you that those cute cuddly men have all the genes we wish to eradicate in men, a certain degree of sociopathy is required to maintain a strong frame in the face of the adversity’s nature throws at us.

Veneration of the weak and frail, glorification of degeneracy is exactly the problem here, not the current reversal back to the veneration of strength.

You’re just promoting beta-male rule, where inferior beta-males put women in a cage of sexual seclusion forced to breed degenerate offspring, all of monogamy is aimed at doing exactly that.

Just because many women fall for false positives now doesn’t mean that the sexual revolution is a bad thing, what women, and more so, the world needs, is the rise of a true Alpha Patriarch to set things straight again and show women an example of the kind of men they’re supposed to shower with sex and reproduction.

You are a classic case of a mind corrupted by dark triad swill. And it is perfect that you are also running through the feminist cliche checklist, since your whole way of life is premised on cashing in on the feminist revolt against civilization. You are now exhibit A.

Religion is the consequence of the prolonged absence of a true leader, appointed by a Meritocracy, in the prolonged absence of a real “shepherd” people are going to cling to the idea that an invisible shepherd is guiding them, and showing them the way.

The great paradox of the Beta-Patriarchy is that despite of their wishes to eradicate Alpha males, and reform human society to fit the needs of the Beta’s, they still have a slavish need to submit to a true Alpha leader … just an imaginary one.

Anyway, if your rebuttal is little more than a knee-jerk reaction based on religious dogma than i cannot really have a sensible debate with you on the topic.

So i must ask, is your idea of what is “moral” or not based on religious scripture, or on logical deduction ?

P.s. I appreciate it that you published my comment despite of your fervent disagreement with it.

It’s funny how these PUA guys (who you can tell never got laid prior to figuring out “game”) think they are the new “alpha elite”. I can’t stop laughing. PUA is about acting “alpha” in a democratized, safe world … this would never work in the jungle, so to speak, nor would it work in a healthy Western society. Game is like a loophole in the sexual market place of laws that comes along when social collapse is paired with urban safety.

Roosh and Roissy are both ugly, talentless non-Aryan playboys who have coined a new revolution in sexual affairs. Go on their sites and you will see ramblings of advice from alpha keyboard warriors mocking “beta marriage” and long term relationships. The only way to be alpha, accordingly is to keep a harem of 3 or 4 f*ckbuddies. Evidently.

I’m ashamed so many white men think that their ability to sleep with used up western w*ores in large numbers makes them somehow superior to those who don’t.

“alpha keyboard warriors mocking “beta marriage” and long term relationships.”

Millennial T,

I don’t think they are against the traditional form of marriage as it used to be before the sexual revolution. The fact is marriage is an insane risk for men in the West. In France, you can be cuckolded and still have to pay child support. Your wife can simply get bored divorce rape you and take up to 70% of your income, while alienating you from your children. What incentive is there for a man to get married? The manosphere is just a reaction to this insane system. I personally do not like their anti-women talk, but they are just reacting to the system. The people who really deserve our anger are the YKW who implemented this insane system, and if anyone has a plan on how to effectively deal with them, then please let me know.

Bill, PUA is all about deifying casual sex and “winning” in a skewed market place. That’s great for anyone under 25ish (which I am) who wants to experiment, but it’s not a behavior grown men should indulge upon with pride. Yet this is becoming the norm for post-college behavior… selfishness without respect for the future.

I have sisters and I know what the modern world promotes … it’s entirely destructive to the well being of future mothers. If our women no longer deserve to be respected as marriage material, so be it … but I won’t be proud of capitalizing on such a system. PUAs give lip service to becoming a better man, but we all know that’s window dressing for the primary, never ending pursuit of “getting laid”.

A commodity calculated to arouse and excite vapid simpletons creates Alpha males? No. It creates generations of weaklings whose engagement with the opposite sex usually begins and ends with a remote control. Of mental infants who can only win the attention and the affection of the absolute weakest of women. As another poster has posted, your kind would not last a minute fighting a real Alpha male as you exemplify in every way the idiocy and degeneracy of modernity and bourgeois comfort.

Mr. Johnson is dead-on, as usual. The re-domestication of the savage and vicious woman should be an urgent priority, as well as the re-masculation of males when we establish our own homeland. And it will be easier than most think. The first priority will be to eliminate non-white bulls from our living space, a cow will always submit to whatever bull appears most dominate in the eco-sphere and right now that is blacks, whom we have ceded the field to. We also must remove the women from the work space and reestablish women as housewives, for it is their historical mission to transmit our racial heritage to the next generation. If we can subsidize non-white births we can certainly subsidize the reproductive processes of our own race. Men create the culture of the race; women create the next generation. Rare, is the woman who truly cares about racial survival, that is a masculine trait. The woman’s life mission revolves around the child and she will accept the attentions of any male that is allowed to circulate within the existing culture. This is true in every civilization and at every time period.

I can agree with GJ on the problematic aspects of the manosphere but so what…We’ve got serious problems here and all we get is more man shaming? PUA is only one aspect of the ‘sphere and it’s likely that far more of the readers are simply “moderates” looking for a better understanding of the situation.

The simple answer here is that women are prone to act in life without rationale (evolution I guess) and they will not willingly give up the current system. A conservative Christian blog like Dalrock’s will show you that the Female Imperative inflicts virtually all of them (regardless of politics) and as long as Big Democratic Daddy Govt. runs the state, there is no nice way out of it.

Granted, you should be concerned that increasingly more young men will become nihilistic and anarchic in response but unfortunately, empty appeals to honor and morals is simply too little, too late. Let’s not talk about “healthy partnerships” when every law and court is stacked against the male and the tax on his labour is funding this whole charade.

Are you sure feminism/cultural marxism is the problem with the sexes nowadays, and not condoms/the Pill?

To my mind, cultural evolution is preceded by technological evolution and not the reverse. Wasn’t the historical taboo on fornication mostly the result of inefficient methods of contraception? Wasn’t the fall of feudality mostly caused by the firearm and the rise of modern industry?

The impact of technology in our current predicaments is rarely if ever discussed on this blog, just like the possibility that technology may also, perhaps, provide answers to our problems in the future — more surely than a hypothetical political revolution, which I would be glad to see happening one day, but which seems unlikely. For example, why care so much about women when genetic engineering and artificial uteri are at worst a century away?

I am not a Marxist, so, no, I do not think that technology is the driving force of historical change. And lack of technology is not technology, by the way. Taboos against fornication — and let’s face it, there is a double standard here, and it applies more stringently to females — was to assure men that they were raising their own children.

Condoms/the pill are definitely problems today, but they are problems because of the overwhelming ethos of selfish individualism, and because voluntary birth control is always dysgenic, since it is only practiced by the intelligent, far-sighted, and public spirited. A society in which people made reproductive choices with an eye to the greater good of the race would not be destroyed but enhanced by birth control technologies.

I guess we “care so much about women” around here because we have wives, sisters, daughters, etc. Some of us even have girlfriends and wives. Feature that!

Reading the various “game” websites I get the sense of the scene in the movie Gone with the Wind where Rhett and Scarlet are fleeing through a burning Atlanta. The Confederate army has abandoned the city, while the Union has not yet marched in. There’s a window of opportunity for the looters to run amok and seize what they want, as best they can. That’s essentially what “game” is about. The old Patriarchy has abandoned the show, while the new overlords have not yet taken over. So there’s some time for clever players to game the chaos and grab what they can. The real dilemma is going to face them when every Western city has been turned into a junior Zimbabwe–and the struggle for survival will cancel the games.

To be fair, “game” does teach men some survival skills in today’s relationship jungle. For many men it is the only game in town. But it does not deal with the real threat, which is the continuing self-destruction of white civilization.

Question: is there any consideration for a general alliance of white nationalists and the manosphere, both as fronts in a broader Dark Alliance?

I brought it up on Spearhead and there was the usual onslaught of Libertarian stupidity, and even worse, guys raving about men of all colors uniting against all women. I don’t see the two movements coalescing despite the strong White Nationalist presence. We’re going to have to go our own way as well.

I agree, yes, the players are being played. You see, this men vs. women tripe is merely the weaponized Jew propaganda called “Feminism” and is designed for one reason, alone. To keep us Europeans from having healthy, functional families and societies. The fact that people cannot seem to grasp that concept is incredibly frustrating.

I am a rational, intelligent woman and I do not see this ridiculous Alpha/Beta dichotomy being thrown around in the comments. I see men who respect themselves and, therefore, can expect this will be extended to me, and I see men who do not respect themselves. Cads and socially-awkward men fall in the latter, although I am much more inclined to be forgiving to the socially-awkward fellow.

When we tear each other apart and continue participating in the war of the sexes, we do the job of the 2%, like good little domesticated animals.

So ask yourselves, does the manosphere support healthy, flourishing marriages and child-rearing amongst Europeans? Because if the answer is no, then it is doing the work of our enemies. Simple as that.

I first began reading Roissy around 2010. I had fallen into something of a depressive funk around 2007-08, when I felt crushed by the realization of the true extent of the unfolding racial crisis. In those days I all but ceased going out at night, and when I did I felt too numb to talk to anyone, perplexed as I was by people’s seeming total obliviousness to their peerless cultural inheritance (genetic too, though ‘peerless’ is a gross overstatement as it relates to individuals). Reading sites like Roissy’s helped me get my mojo back, and I have to be grateful for that. Alas, the Roissy’s of the world offer little hope for civilizational renaissance, and more likely only help to cement civilizational decline.

I was intrigued to read descriptions of the ‘dark triad.’ At first I was troubled that what I was reading seemed to be describing me, but on reflection I realized I wasn’t particularly troubled by possessing such traits, rather it troubled me that other people might detect it. Indeed, I was flabbergasted that some people not only admitted possessing these traits, they were openly proud of it. (Whatever they might think of themselves, true Machiavellians they are not.) The experience gave me a newfound respect for religious hypocrisy. Surely, I reasoned, not all of those solemnly genuflecting Spanish franquistas really believed that if a man look at another woman he has already sinned in his heart – but it certainly made good sense to claim to.

Despite the Roissy’s degeneracy, there are some bright spots in his site. Not only does his advice appropriately applied help men, the site itself often reads like a White Man’s Weekly. Given there are so few outlets for pro-white racial viewpoints, even Roissy’s haphazard references to basic racial realities (my guess is he went down that road less from conviction and more for the edgy mystique it added to the guru status he longed for) should be welcomed. Naturally he should be ditched the moment doing so is feasible.

To clarify, I’m sure he believes what he writes, but I think the inclusion of that material originated from a desire to be edgy. There’s certainly nothing inherently pro-white about game, and a lot of the time his pro-white posts sit there incongruently beside the game stuff. Fortunately for him the ‘red pill’ and ‘dark enlightenment’ metaphors, which loosely tie together these concepts that the mainstream regards as outre, have taken off.

And yes, “What else am I being lied to about?” can be life-changing. Unlike most, my start down this road was holocaust rev (indirectly, from first reading the Irving trial transcripts). Even though I wasn’t initially convinced I had to admit revisionists posed some very reasonable and challenging questions, and I found the liberal mainstream’s refusal to answer them quite revealing. That shook me up and it encouraged to explore other ‘forbidden’ ideas – most of which turned out to be depressingly all too true.

If one defines “manosphere” within certain boundaries, i.e. mainly PUA and game, then what Greg writes is true.

However, the “manosphere” defined as a wider concept includes sites such as Dalrock, The Spearhead and Alpha Game, that are actually at the forefront of trying to recover and encourage the traditional norms and mores Greg describes. So the manosphere contains both the good and the bad, and I think as more young men tire of the PUA routine, they will be attracted to Dalrock’s and Vox Day’s who are encouraging a more healthy masculinity and femininity.

Dalrock is good. You can argue about whether he is part of the manosphere; I would say he is because he preaches realism in contrast to the official lies. I’m out of patience and sympathy for those who claim he’s teaching corruption. Durable marriages are necessary, and lies about the sinless nature of women are destructive in that context and need to be fought. Beguiling divorce fantasies promoted by the mass media need to be debunked too. Dalrock is doing yeoman work there.

If this is conceded, than it can be said that while some manosphere writers teach corruption along with important truths, others do not. (Or at least “one other does not” pending further examples.)

Well said. I was a regular visitor of Return of Kings (one of Roosh’s blogs) until recently, when I had the epiphany that the manosphere propagates an unhealthy attitude towards women, complimented by immature masculinity, defined by vanity, material success, and freedom used for hedonistic ends. In other words, the manosphere is filled with men whose horizons do not go very far beyond themselves, so to speak. While it has done me the valuable service of revealing the reality of the sexes (the “red pill” glasses make reality make a lot more sense), and has taught me to think about my own masculinity and what I want in life, and the secret to confidence around women (that women and sex are a suppliment and superfluous to true happiness), I believe that, as you said, the manosphere uses valuable knowledge that could be very effective in planning to reorganize society to hedonistic ends.

That being said, I don’t think it is wrong to “ride the cougar.” Yet, I think such a reaction to cognition of the reality between the sexes in present day reveals an inferior masculinity. The men on the manosphere will jump through the hoops of corruption. I am not speaking from a high moral ground that it is wrong, and I think the manosphere is very positive for a lot of men, but men who care more about ideals as opposed to hedonistic pleasure should keep distance. Women are part of the landscape of a culture and society, and if one wants to build something new, they should not become too attached to the landscape, as if the the society is corrupt, the landscape is filthy. There are surely exceptions, but keep an inner distance from woman.

Along with reestablishing patriarchal standards in marriage, we also need to teach women to not be ashamed of femininity. The machine corrupts women by forcing them to use their subordinate masculine traits, and this is why so many women are miserable. They become unhealthily attached to their egos because they lack a true masculine center that serves as a stable principle in men.

I believe the Third Reich had a very positive view for women. Western women are unique in that they were, compared to other cultures, given a heroic role in Western tradition that paid homage to the genuine feminine. In American tradition (thank you, protestantism), femininity has been unhealthily repressed and woman have been taught to feel ashamed about their femininity. Men also have an unhealthy perspective towards femininity, considering it, in the context of industrial society, as inferior for productivity. Feminism continues this tradition, pressuring otherwise valuable women to live up to masculine standards.

Along with patriarchal standards, femininity, like true masculinity, must be taught as a heroic discipline. Women must be taught to be proud of and how to cultivate themselves. I think a “womanosphere” is also in order.

If you want Patriarchy, you have to mean it. And that means adopting the simple and ancient premise: Men are Better. Otherwise it’ll just be more “manning up” – which is just service to women and the military/industrial complex. Men must rule. The best Men. White Men of good character.

Same thing with minorities. Need our help? That means accepting our rule. And we have the right to be compensated by having access to your natural resources.

As far as the games, yes there is corruption there – all the signs of suppressed dominance. If you have to serve inferiors, what do you expect? Happy servitude? And yes, the Masters of the Game should graduate but seem addicted to it instead.

How to get back to Patriarchy? No idea outside of a religious revival. It really is very late in the day. We dithered for decades as we fell faster and faster. Both Evola and William Gayley Simpson said we were going to hit the bottom and that could not be avoided now. And both suggested that perhaps a new elite could prepare for that future and be ready to rebuild.

As someone who disagrees with Greg Johnson’s overarching worldview I consider it a great pity that that man is as he is – because his analyses are so often right on the money, as is this one.

Still, I wouldn’t be myself if I didn’t quibble.

Firstly, emancipated female sexuality isn’t necessarily dysgenic. If the most sexually emancipated women – particularly those who find themselves the most irresistibly attracted to dark triad traits – forgo childbirth in order to indulge their sexual appetites, sexual emancipation could well prove eugenic (in the sense of weeding out these genotypes).

Secondly, knowledge regarding female sexual proclivities can be applied to keep (satisfy) the woman one has, in addition to the uses which Greg rightly criticizes. This essay touches on this point (“provides the New Right with all theoretical premises” ) but doesn’t do it full justice.

Andrew, you state, ” They are selling a lifestyle of recreational sex, and treating women in a way that healthy men would not want their sisters and daughters treated.”
This is true.
But have you seen the way that “their sisters and daughters” treat men whom they view as “sub-hypergamous?” Women who behave like that, from a neutral perspective (imagine they were not related to you), deserve whatever male abuse and manipulation they get, quite frankly.

Another insightful and well-reasoned essay by Mr. Johnson. Human beings are designed by nature to have societies which are regulated by the experienced males, the patriarchs of the tribe, who know all about men and the potential downfalls that men face. The patriarchs exert control over the tribe, particularly over the females. No male touches their daughters without their consent, which is only given when the male is a proven resource-earner, displays social intelligence and offers reliable commitment for child-rearing. This was the case in European societies for all of known history/pre-history until the 1960’s or so. Naturally, when society deviates from what the human species is designed for, dysfunction follows.

Women are designed as nurturers, which I believe requires a lack of logical functioning to some extent. A woman is adaptively designed to give unconditional love (ie, complete emotion and attachment unadulterated by rational thought) to babies, children, spouse and family. The same emotional mind that is so necessary for nurturing is a poor instrument for critically judging males. In a dysfunctional modern world that opposes almost all forms of natural order, we have the situation that Mr. Johnson describes, where cads and predators can learn to mimic attractive male characteristics, becoming the fox in the henhouse, so to speak, having their way with females without offering bonding or child-rearing. And this is bad.

To the extent that the Manosphere teaches and trains European males to attract and secure European females as mates with the outcome of marriage and children, it is a very good thing. However, that is not the goal of the majority of the Manosphere gurus. They are selling a lifestyle of recreational sex, and treating women in a way that healthy men would not want their sisters and daughters treated. There is much of value to be learned from the manosphere by men, but there is also a strong element of social corruption emanating from it that is at odds with the goal of propagating and restoring the European race. Those European women should be regarded as our women, our sisters and daughters. They should not be worshipped by beta males but they should also not be treated as receptacles by cads.

I don’t disagree with playfulness in sex. Put Lawrence in context too. His time, his life. I just can’t get how guys do not get the difference between fantasy and reality. If you do not put up boundaries oneself, then exploitation is bound to happen and the game becomes much more brutal. After all Medea had no qualms about killing her children out of revenge. There is this thing called emotional intelligence. Game is just the manipulative dark side of that. Men so desperate to have power over someone.

I am sure you’re familiar with what is happening in Japan. Men and women alike are rejecting sex — the nation is essentially going “asexual” — and they’re experiencing a population decline so stark that even the authorities are alarmed. I suspect this is what is beginning to take place in the West.

If you have not looked into the growth of asexuality, please do. They are 1% of the population and the majority of them are European and Asian. I suspect that there is a genetic basis to it and our current environment(s) are triggering these genes.

Interesting facts: rats became asexual in John B. Calhoun’s ‘Rat Utopia’. Researchers concluded that overpopulation, namely the lack of space and too much social interaction, led to some rats becoming hypersexual, others becoming homosexual or bisexual, and still others becoming asexual and even asocial.

Most people pretending to be asexual are actually incels (Incel = involuntary celibacy)
The claim of asexuality alleviates pressure, and mitigates accusations of being too inferior for women to breed with.

What happens in Japan and the west, is that the world is returning to the natural order in which ONLY the best Y-Chromosome is allowed to reproduce, thus all the beta men, being shoved to the side by the women of child-bearing age who have enough positive traits to land a high SMV man, and thus this revert to the natural Meritocracy is going to reverse the overpopulation that beta-male rulership caused (if EVERY man is allowed to reproduce, far too much reproduction takes place).

The one big problem though, is that this reversal isn’t taking place everywhere in the world, and if the west, and Japan, basically if the fully industrialized world are going to severely decrease population this is going to cause us to become overrun by a society that is still heavily Beta-ruled, namely… Islamic society.

So the west, and the industrialized East-Asian country’s need to find a way to still be able to reproduce a lot, but only with high SMV, true-Alpha men.

I suppose sperm banks + artificial insemination can achieve that.

Women will have to have children with Alpha men, and getting Beta men to rear after them.

Women who’re married, or in committed relationships with Beta’s must impregnate themselves with true Alpha’s and make the Beta’s believe it’s theirs in order to simultaneously reinstate the natural Meritocracy and keep our population count high enough to combat the king of all Beta-ruled society’s, the Islamic world.

After the islamic world is eradicated and women in the Middle East are also sexually liberated can we begin depopulating the world of inferior spawn.

Before mankind can cure itself of the ills of Beta-Rulership the greatest Beta-ruled society must first be broken and extinguished.

Everyone needs some of the darktriad in them every now and then, but you don’t have to Charlie Manson 24/7. Looking a woman in the eyes when you speak to her and not taking her shit does not also mean you have to be a total douche bag. You can still be a loving husband, father, and son and still not allow women walk all over you. Dominant does not always mean act like a dickhead.

Having Game skills is like having money it is not necessarily good or bad, its what you use it for that counts. I would also advise people to go easy on a lot of the manosphere guys out there. A lot of these guys have been divorced raped and had their relationships with their children destroyed. They have every reason to be absolutely pissed off at women and the system. We want to protect women, but we can not forget all the men who are causalities and have had their lives utterly destroyed by feminism.

Darius, I myself am asexual and there is not a thing any man, no matter how gorgeous or kind, can do about it. It has a genetic basis. Permit me to generalize about other asexuals. People who are genetically predisposed to asexuality, like the few rats who became asexual in response to their environment, cannot and will not ‘become sexual’. It doesn’t happen. Thus you are mistaken to assert that asexual=invol. celibacy.

Asexual has little if anything to do with that. The asexual does not experience sexual attraction and celibacy is not a choice. An asexual person engaging in sex is equivalent to a straight person engaging in homosexual sex. It just isn’t “right” and it never will be. Sexual people do not understand asexuals. I wish I could say otherwise.

That said, I’m interested in why this phenomenon afflicts an estimated 1% of European and Asian peoples in, to my knowledge, every developed nation today. Does it have something to do with overpopulation, too much social interaction/stimuli, and/or lack of space?

Do you think the Illuminati are really having such parties as portrayed in Eyes Wide Shut? We know they are having orgies: Clinton went with Epstein to Orgy Island. And we know some of them like little kids as Jimmy Saville’s connections to the Royals indicates. But are they having large scale rituals as only the most seemingly paranoid right wingers have heretofore imagined? I mean if Bohemian Grove happens, why not Eyes Wide Shut?

I recently saw the movie and it has really stayed with me, especially the power of the ritual and the beautiful but despairing music.

I’m glad you wrote this article exposing the manosphere. I certainly wouldn’t want to raise good women for manospheriacs to get their game on; nor would I want to leash or suffocate women in an off-balance white nationalist new world order. Both these themes seem common in WN. There is no point in blaming women for what is entirely in white men’s hands, if it mattered to them to change. There is a larger strategic point here.

“Social shaming” is not the way to go. Advice is. Advice is preparation and development and learning via a congruent culture. Social shaming is when the horse is out of the barn.

In a congruent culture, where race, art, and religion align, women see the right type of men intuitively; they wouldn’t have to be “controlled.” Both sexes would see intuitively the values that please a healthy life to present those values, and find each other. Finding a mate would be cake. There would be no need for shaming. The ducks would already be lined up for good choices.

Do you want to be shamed into buying something over another? Instead one prefers information that can refine your taste to make the best decision. You want advice you can live with, not shame that turns you off.

Using shame as a tool is negative rather than positive. It is a sign of a culture in defense or retreat. Since it is socially isolating, you could just as well have a daughter rebel and run away. Could you be happy in a shamed-marriage? A healthy culture should be aspirational and have stepping stones, learning stones, towards rewarding choices.

I’m sure women can make good decisions with proper information and experience in a congruent culture. The “slut-shaming white nationalist approach” wasn’t Hitler’s approach. He didn’t blame the women; he gave them things to cultivate the sexes and their sexuality.

Today, it’s hard to blame women for eating chocolate when the silent majority of US white men continue to give blacks equal opportunity to their wives and daughters. The answer is to take the chocolate away, so it’s not available. WN can slut-shame to the hilt, but it doesn’t solve the Jew problem, which is the problem. Slut-shaming divides the sexes and assures a vote of no-confidence in WN from women. It shows frustration and danger. A stray dog doesn’t come closer by kicking it. Shame the Jews. They deserve it. Drive them out. That shows strength in the direction it belongs. That is a lesson to learn if you want success in electoral politics. Half the voters are women. They all have scars. You have to treat them right with a message that reaches them and which they can accept, scars and all.

A culture themed on the selection of excellence in man and method would reduce the number of scum-boys and marginalize their prominence. This would make a woman’s sexuality free, intuitive, and fall into the hands of plenty of good men.

In the old days, women had finishing schools, instead of lady’s magazines fitted to Jew-pop culture, diets, fads, and foolishness.

Children should learn to sing confidently, ballroom dance like the wind, and play date, hold hands, and do the things that teens have hangups on: “asking out,” “saying I love you,” “how to reject someone politely,” “writing a love letter,” communication and cooperation by formal practice and for fun. They should get romantic education. They need a sense of normalcy in male-female interactions and a common romantic etiquette and language they can confidently use to find their reflective partner, instead of “game,” i.e., fraud.

This way, when they are adults, they would have the skills to interact as adults with their peers without being shame-ridden wall-flowers. They should collect skills and confidence to be happily in love, instead, of collect comic books and ball cards that lead to the sexless manosphere. You should see how people are in Argentina. Teens freely kiss and hug in public as if it’s normal; not for show or attention. Even with cradle-to-grave sex education, kissing in public is still weird in America. Argentina has a more congruent culture with plenty of high art and romance.

Feminism hyper-overcompensates for Puritianism to become its own Puritanism; but shaming gets us back to the Puritans. Can’t we get over both? The Ancient Greeks weren’t either. Shame and gluttonous plastic sex don’t make romance or babies. Personal excellence mutually expressing a congruent culture does.

You can’t promote normative behaviors with carrots only, and you can’t simply let people learn from their own mistakes, for at least three reasons: (1) sometimes the negative consequences don’t happen, (2) sometimes they take a long time to happen and therefore are not a disincentive to people with high time preferences, and (3) civilization means we can learn from the experiences of others and be spared making our own mistakes. Thus we have to institute shame and guilt as reliable and immediate and not particularly harsh disincentives for immoral behaviors.

I respect Mr. Johnson’s writing a great deal, and probably consider him second only to Dr. Kevin MacDonald as the most important writer of the New Right. However, I respectfully disagree with some aspects of this post.

I know a good number of traditionalist-minded men whose lives were practically ruined (or at the very least, their changes of marrying and starting a family were nullified) due to their having a 100% wrong-headed understanding of female psychology. They operated completely according to what Heartiste and others call “white knighting” — they were complete and utter betas in every way and never understood why they repelled the very women whom they most desperately adored.

I am certain that in most of their cases, if they had ever been given an accurate primer on female motivation, such as what the “manosphere” provides, they would have at least saved themselves countless amounts of time and treasure on failed attempts to win women’s hearts in the most counter-productive manner possible, and possibly even managed to marry and start a family.

Thus, whatever “corruption” the manosphere may provide is incidental to how it helps individual men not to have their lives ruined.

Or to put it another way, yes, in the long term, we would all certainly love to reestablish traditional sexual norms. In the meantime, however, the manosphere can help many men not ruin themselves and be deprived of love right NOW, today, circumstances being what they are.

What the manosphere teaches about women, men need to know. They won’t learn it anywhere else. Quite the opposite: society teaches men the precise opposite of the truth about women. And operating on those lies, many traditionally minded men will not only end up repelling the women the desire, but not having the faintest idea, not a clue, as to WHY they are repelling them.

Second only to the JQ, I think the manosphere’s revelations about women are the most vitally necessary ideas generated by the “New Right.”

I’d just posted a comment criticizing the Manosphere, but now I have to agree with you in one point: it’s really useful in order to understand female psychology, and to avoid becoming a rejected beta loser. Yes, that’s a highly valuable service.

But we have to admit that the Game is a kind of doubleheaded axe. You know what I mean.

I agree that the manosphere can and does benefit men in the manner you describe. But I think that it also can and does corrupt men in the manner that I describe. In the end, collective problems require collective solutions, but the manosphere is primarily about giving individual men tools for satisfying themselves within the current corrupt world rather than changing that world, or even encouraging people to think about how to change that world.

But when institutions are corrupt and incentives are bad, individualism is no solution, but just a deepening of the problem. Rational self-interest only promotes the good in a healthy culture and a political system with healthy incentives.

I completely agree with the critique of “White Knights” and the utter pointlessness and folly of conservative moralizing (really, just another form of individualism) in the face of a civilizational breakdown like we are experiencing today.

Well said. Chivalry is a softening of the harshness of Patriarchy. It merges with Mysticism, seeing the Women as an embodiment of the Goddess. Thus it is High Culture – as long as Patriarchy remains firm. Justice first and foremost, with Mercy added on. Otherwise we have what we have now: Emo boys adoring snooty beauties who embody nothing but veniality. A chaste woman who is doing her duty is worthy of reverence. And she should feel the same way towards men in general – not just the ones who reverence her. This is difficult for women who are always judging men as to how they can serve her or women in general. Thus the system is always liable to break down. And if it does, the Mannerbund and Patriarchy must be there to limit the damage and keep society afloat.

To correct these problems, we need to roll back sexual liberation by reestablishing social shaming for female promiscuity and, most importantly, involving the family — particularly fathers and brothers — in the process by which women choose suitors and husbands. Involving the family in her deliberations can expand a woman’s awareness and sharpen her judgments by bringing other perspectives into play.

“To correct these problems, we need to roll back sexual liberation by reestablishing social shaming for female promiscuity and, most importantly, involving the family — particularly fathers and brothers — in the process by which women choose suitors and husbands. Involving the family in her deliberations can expand a woman’s awareness and sharpen her judgments by bringing other perspectives into play.”

Coming from a family of 5 sisters with the father most of the time away from the family at work, every last sister massivley failed in relationships and marriage with men, and not one of them is now married. But the choosing of dysfuntional partners continues and continues to FAIL.

Indeed. But for this of course you need men who strive for a moral standard themselves.

b…involving the family — particularly fathers and brothers — in the process by which women choose suitors and husbands.

“Yeah, good luck with that. That’s a tall order, Greg.

I think it’s not at all. But see second sentence.

No, I don’t see the difficulty. As to a, in present conditions opportunities for social shaming arise on a daily basis if one has the caring and the spine plus is standing in the ‘right place’ himself. Misbehavior abounds. We have the power of speech. Do it. Be actually edgy. Here, I’ll demonstrate:

On the other hand think what a buzz a group of men can create. 2-3 White guys would feel like regiment.

But, yeah, you have to be on board with the concept of moral uprightness in the first place, as a man. Then it’s easy to stand up.

Language coinage helps. It’s like I say, for ever snutten sluts are produced. In fact, sluts come from snuts. And I think that’s the essence of Greg’s excellent article and why the moral barrenness of Man-o-sphere types points to disaster.

As to the second item, parental and family influence, is it so hard? A comment from even a brother about a fellow sister is dating can have huge effect. How about the expectation that the suitor meet the father? It’s an old part of our heritage already. We’re not that far from these things in time. New movements can codify old things in new ways.

To show how easily idealistic White youth can embrace old fashioned ideals, here’s a bit of my story: I was raised in fairly liberal society yet embraced, by my twenties, a universalist religion that derived from Islam, the Baha’i Faith. (I know, it’s embarrassing.) But get this: It required that a courting couple have permission from all four parents before they could marry.

It had to be written. And we actually did this.

Now, this was two White youth of Christian heritage (Norwegian, Central European. Lithuanian) embracing this homey law from a totally foreign religion. Such was the hunger for a moral order.

There have to be lots of cultural precedents in our own Christian heritage for this kind of parental influence. What social conventions existed 200 years ago in Catholic France? What do the Amish do today? Indeed let’s construct new culture that has these wisdom tacks.

There will ultimately be a generational backlash against Porn World and against the Man-o-sphere’s Shakti Dumpers (the male companions to ‘cum-dumpsters’) who think emptying the best from their bones into fruitless trashpots is high living. Hugh Hefner was a shallow putz after all, wasn’t he? Needing drugs and gay porn, at last report, to keep up his meaningless fornications?